Changes in the Soil Phosphorus Supply with Rice Straw Return in Cold Region

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A long (10-year-) experiment with great practical implications.  Below are few suggested revisions.

1. Some tables and figures are difficult to follow.  Make them easier to read.

2. There are some inconsistencies in numbers in throughout the manuscript.

3. Minor English suggestions.

4. Please refer to the attached file for other suggestions.

5. The main question addressed by the research: Does rice straw return affect rice yield, soil phosphorus supply, soil enzyme activities, and microbial communities?

6. It's not 100 % original, but specific to the environments of paddy rice fields in the Northeast China Investigation on the subject area under the Northeast China climatic and edaphic condition.

7. Experimental design (whenever possible, randomization should be done within blocks). Zero straw return should be sufficient as the control.

8. This is another issue that needs to be addressed by the authors. Most of the tables and figures either have mistakes or are difficult to read. They must be improved.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a very interesting project and a contribution to alleviating the scarcity of P.  I include some questions and comments to try to improve your data analysis and findings.  

The experimental design is not clear enough, in my opinion, even if the soil is the same the layout should be a complete block randomized design.

It seems the X-values are not the correct ones in Figure 2 if I replace or use 2008 in the equation I end up with a different Y-value. Maybe you rescaled X values as 2008=1. 2009=2, …..

The analysis of variance should include year, treatments, and the interaction.

Line 171. The averages look weird, please check them.

Line 185, the mean of S2 is not the same as the one in Table 1, please check all the treatments.

You mentioned in M&M that the pairwise comparison used was the Duncan test, however, in the results chapter you used the LSD.

Figure 3 shows the same information as Table 1, in my opinion, it is not needed.

I wonder if residual-p, HCL-P, NaOH-Pa, NaOH-Pi, NaHCO3-Po, NaHCO3-Pi, H2O-P, S-ACP, S-NP, and S-AKP were measured each year if that is the case, the ANOVA should include year, treatment, and interaction.

The objective of the correlation of paragraph 3.4 is not clear.

Figure 7 title must improve.

 

 

 

 

 

 This is a very interesting project and a contribution to alleviating the scarcity of P.  I include some questions and comments to try to improve your data analysis and findings.  

 

The experimental design is not clear enough, in my opinion, even if the soil is the same the layout should be a complete block randomized design.

It seems the X-values are not the correct ones in Figure 2 if I replace or use 2008 in the equation I end up with a different Y-value. Maybe you rescaled X values as 2008=1. 2009=2, …..

The analysis of variance should include year, treatments, and the interaction.

Line 171. The averages look weird, please check them.

Line 185, the mean of S2 is not the same as the one in Table 1, please check all the treatments.

You mentioned in M&M that the pairwise comparison used was the Duncan test, however, in the results chapter you used the LSD.

Figure 3 shows the same information as Table 1, in my opinion, it is not needed.

I wonder if residual-p, HCL-P, NaOH-Pa, NaOH-Pi, NaHCO3-Po, NaHCO3-Pi, H2O-P, S-ACP, S-NP, and S-AKP were measured each year if that is the case, the ANOVA should include year, treatment, and interaction.

The objective of the correlation of paragraph 3.4 is not clear.

Figure 7 title must improve.

 

 

 

 

 This is a very interesting project and a contribution to alleviating the scarcity of P.  I include some questions and comments to try to improve your data analysis and findings.  

 

The experimental design is not clear enough, in my opinion, even if the soil is the same the layout should be a complete block randomized design.

It seems the X-values are not the correct ones in Figure 2 if I replace or use 2008 in the equation I end up with a different Y-value. Maybe you rescaled X values as 2008=1. 2009=2, …..

The analysis of variance should include year, treatments, and the interaction.

Line 171. The averages look weird, please check them.

Line 185, the mean of S2 is not the same as the one in Table 1, please check all the treatments.

You mentioned in M&M that the pairwise comparison used was the Duncan test, however, in the results chapter you used the LSD.

Figure 3 shows the same information as Table 1, in my opinion, it is not needed.

I wonder if residual-p, HCL-P, NaOH-Pa, NaOH-Pi, NaHCO3-Po, NaHCO3-Pi, H2O-P, S-ACP, S-NP, and S-AKP were measured each year if that is the case, the ANOVA should include year, treatment, and interaction.

The objective of the correlation of paragraph 3.4 is not clear.

Figure 7 title must improve.

 

 

 

 

 This is a very interesting project and a contribution to alleviating the scarcity of P.  I include some questions and comments to try to improve your data analysis and findings.  

 

The experimental design is not clear enough, in my opinion, even if the soil is the same the layout should be a complete block randomized design.

It seems the X-values are not the correct ones in Figure 2 if I replace or use 2008 in the equation I end up with a different Y-value. Maybe you rescaled X values as 2008=1. 2009=2, …..

The analysis of variance should include year, treatments, and the interaction.

Line 171. The averages look weird, please check them.

Line 185, the mean of S2 is not the same as the one in Table 1, please check all the treatments.

You mentioned in M&M that the pairwise comparison used was the Duncan test, however, in the results chapter you used the LSD.

Figure 3 shows the same information as Table 1, in my opinion, it is not needed.

I wonder if residual-p, HCL-P, NaOH-Pa, NaOH-Pi, NaHCO3-Po, NaHCO3-Pi, H2O-P, S-ACP, S-NP, and S-AKP were measured each year if that is the case, the ANOVA should include year, treatment, and interaction.

The objective of the correlation of paragraph 3.4 is not clear.

Figure 7 title must improve.

 

 

 

 

 This is a very interesting project and a contribution to alleviating the scarcity of P.  I include some questions and comments to try to improve your data analysis and findings.  

 

The experimental design is not clear enough, in my opinion, even if the soil is the same the layout should be a complete block randomized design.

It seems the X-values are not the correct ones in Figure 2 if I replace or use 2008 in the equation I end up with a different Y-value. Maybe you rescaled X values as 2008=1. 2009=2, …..

The analysis of variance should include year, treatments, and the interaction.

Line 171. The averages look weird, please check them.

Line 185, the mean of S2 is not the same as the one in Table 1, please check all the treatments.

You mentioned in M&M that the pairwise comparison used was the Duncan test, however, in the results chapter you used the LSD.

Figure 3 shows the same information as Table 1, in my opinion, it is not needed.

I wonder if residual-p, HCL-P, NaOH-Pa, NaOH-Pi, NaHCO3-Po, NaHCO3-Pi, H2O-P, S-ACP, S-NP, and S-AKP were measured each year. If that is the case, the ANOVA should include year, treatment, and interaction.

The objective of the correlation of paragraph 3.4 is not clear.

Figure 7 title must improve.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx